KORIVI CHINNA POLI REDDY Vs. DADIBOINA GURAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed O.S. No. 308 of 2002 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, against he petitioners for the relief of perpetual injunction. Subsequently, the suit was amended to add the prayer of specific performance also. The petitioners pleaded that they did not execute the agreements of sale and that they do not have any right over the suit schedule property. The trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed A.S. No. 22 of 2007 in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Badvel.

(2.) In the appeal, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 14 of 2008 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act (for brevity 'the Act') with a prayer to send the agreements of sale dated 21/05/2000 and 27/06/2001 marked as Exs.A-2 and A-3 in the suit for expert's opinion. The respondent opposed the application. Through its order dated 19/06/2008, the lower appellate Court dismissed the IA. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that a specific plea was raised by the petitioners herein in their written statement filed in the suit to the effect that they did not execute the agreements of sale and that they do not have any right over the suit land. He contends that his clients did not feel the necessity of filing the application under Section 45 of the Act on account of the scanty evidence adduced by the respondent to prove the agreements of sale. He contends that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent in case the expert's opinion is obtained vis-?-vis Exs.A-2 and A-3.